Among the arguments addressed in the 57-page Supreme Court opinion, Brady said the jury was wrongly precluded from hearing evidence that others could have committed the murder.

Specifically, he contends two confessions – one written and one to a 911 operator – as well as information about the fatal shooting of two Palos Verdes Estates police officers and a discrepancy in a witness identification should have been given to the jury.

But the court’s unanimous opinion, penned by Justice Kathryn Werdegar, stated that evidence suggesting another person had motive to commit the crime, without any other information linking him to it, is irrelevant.

Brady also argued unsuccessfully that a jury should have heard about the criminal record of a key prosecution eyewitness. He argued that the witness tailored his testimony to curry favor with prosecutors.

However, he never presented evidence to show that the witness was offered leniency or threatened with retaliation, the opinion states.

In addition, the prosecutor didn’t even know the witness was on probation for battery until the trial began, the opinion noted.

A career criminal presumed to be on his way to hold up the nearby Ralphs supermarket, Brady fired at Ganz, who retreated after he was wounded.

Brady followed Ganz to where he crouched behind his patrol car, and shot him in the back. He fired one more time, while the officer was down, before fleeing.

Ganz’s then 12-year-old nephew, on a ride-along that night, witnessed the slaying.

Brady was extradited from Oregon after his conviction in Beaverton on charges of killing a customer during a supermarket robbery there.

Brady was 33 when Torrance Superior Court Judge Stephen O’Neil sent him to death row on March 16, 1999.

In November 1998, a jury recommended capital punishment after convicting him of first-degree murder and the special circumstance allegations of murder of a peace officer, murder for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest and that the defendant had a previous murder conviction.

The son of a Vietnamese mother and former U.S. serviceman father, who was born and reared in Vietnam during the war, Brady attacked his convictions on several other grounds.

He argued there was insufficient evidence to support the first-degree murder verdict. He maintains he “randomly” fired at Ganz, and there was no evidence of premeditation or deliberation.

But Brady, who was on federal supervised release for federal bank robbery convictions at the time of the traffic stop, had a firearm in his car – a violation of the terms of his release, the opinion notes.

Werdegar wrote that it is rational to believe that Brady “feared his firearm would be discovered and decided to use it before Officer Ganz became aware of its existence.”

In response, it’s likely to conclude that he “rapidly and coldly formed the idea to kill Officer Ganz,” she added.

Brady also unsuccessfully presented several reasons why his death sentence should be overturned.

For example, he said the jury heard too much testimony related to the impact Ganz’s death had on his family and colleagues, which unlawfully spoke to the panel’s emotions.

The jury heard how Ganz wanted to be a police officer since he was 12 years old and had served as a military police officer in the U.S. Marine Corps before he became a sworn officer in Manhattan Beach in 1989.

He was engaged to be married and close to his family, including his mother, who died six months after him.

Two of his colleagues, who responded to the scene, described the impact his death had on them. One broke down while testifying.

But the justices said the evidence of Ganz’s death was proper, and was balanced equally with information about Brady’s own traumatic childhood, drug problems and psychological issues.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.